POSNOC-POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy: a randomised controlled trial of axillary treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer who have metastases in one or two sentinel nodes

Quality assessment of radiotherapy in the prospective randomized SENOMAC trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recommendations for regional radiotherapy (RT) of sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive breast cancer are debated. We here report a RT quality assessment of the SENOMAC trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SENOMAC trial randomized clinically node-negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 SLN macrometastases to completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) or SLN biopsy only between 2015-2021. Adjuvant RT followed national guidelines. RT plans for patients included in Sweden and Denmark until June 2019 were collected (N = 1176) and compared to case report forms (CRF). Dose to level I (N = 270) and the humeral head (N = 321) was analyzed in detail.

RESULTS

CRF-data and RT plans agreed in 99.3 % (breast/chest wall) and in 96.6 % of patients (regional RT). Congruence for whether level I was an intended RT target was lower (78 %). In accordance with Danish national guidelines, level I was more often an intended target in the SLN biopsy only arm (N = 334/611, 55 %,) than in the cALND arm (N = 174/565, 31 %,). When an intended target, level I received prescribed dose to 100 % (IQR 98-100 %) of the volume. However, even when not an intended target, full dose was delivered to > 80 % of level I (IQR 75-90 %). The intentional inclusion of level I in the target volume more than doubled the dose received by ≥ 50 % of the humeral head.

CONCLUSION

Congruence between CRF data and RT plans was excellent. Level I received a high dose coverage even when not intentionally included in the target. Including level I in target significantly increased dose to the humeral head.

Recent Advances in the Upfront Surgical Management of the Axilla in Patients with Breast Cancer

Nodal status is an important prognostic indicator. Upfront axillary surgery for patients with breast cancer has historically been both diagnostic and therapeutic-serving to determine nodal status and inform adjuvant therapies, and to remove clinically significant disease. However, trials of de-escalation or omission of axillary surgery altogether consistently demonstrate noninferior oncologic outcomes in a wide variety of patient subsets. These strategies also reduce the morbidity associated with either sentinel lymphadenectomy or axillary lymph node dissection. Here we will briefly review landmark trials that have shaped upfront axillary surgery as well as recent advances, and discuss areas of ongoing investigation and future needs.

Is my patient an appropriate candidate for sentinel node biopsy? Less axillary surgery, for the right patients. Critical review and grades of recommendation

INTRODUCTION

While general conclusions of historical trials are widely recognized, the nuances regarding precise indications of Sentinel Node Biopsy (SNB) in breast cancer in complex clinical scenarios often remain a source of debate and require further elucidation.

METHODS

Two reviewers (JFB and GNM) independently searched electronic databases for studies including SNB as the main intervention. Filters were applied to retrieve only clinical trials (randomized or experimental non-randomized); non-oncological outcomes were excluded. The selected studies were considered to construct a narrative review focused on inclusion criteria and survival outcomes, followed by recommendations.

RESULTS

Fourteen (n = 14) trials were selected, including eleven (n = 11) randomized trials for upfront surgery, and three (n = 3) single-group clinical trials for surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. All trials for upfront surgery provided long-term survival data for SNB, that was equivalent or non-inferior to axillary dissection, in tumors without palpable adenopathy (caution for larger T3 and T4 tumors) - Grade of recommendation: A. In tumors up to 5 cm, complete axillary dissection is not necessary if up to two sentinel nodes are positive for macrometastasis, and radiation therapy is planned - Grade of recommendation: A. If there are more than two sentinel nodes positive for macrometastasis, or a positive node other than the sentinel one, complete axillary dissection is recommended - Grade of recommendation: A. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, considering 10% as an acceptable false negative rate, SNB might be offered for cN0 patients who have remained negative, and for cN1 (caution for cN2) patients become clinically negative; complete axillary dissection might not be necessary if at least two sentinel lymph nodes are retrieved, and there is no residual disease - Grade of recommendation: B.

CONCLUSION

SNB can be performed in most cases of clinically negative nodes. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, SNB is feasible and may have acceptable performance for cN0 and cN1 tumors, although prospective survival data is still awaited.

Personalizing Locoregional Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer in 2024: Tailoring Axillary Surgery, Escalating Lymphatic Surgery, and Implementing Evidence-Based Hypofractionated Radiotherapy

The management of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer is continually evolving. Recent data now support omitting axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in most patients with metastases in up to two sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) during upfront surgery and those with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In the upfront surgery setting, ALND is still indicated, however, in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer or more than two positive SLNs and, after NACT, in case of residual micrometastases and macrometastases. Omission of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can be considered in many postmenopausal patients with small luminal breast cancer, particularly when axillary ultrasound is negative. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently aiming at eliminating the remaining indications for ALND and also establishing omission of SLNB in a broader patient population. The movement to deescalate axillary staging is in part because of the association between ALND and lymphedema, which is swelling of an extremity because of lymphatic damage and obstructed lymphatic drainage. To reduce the risk of developing this condition, patients undergoing ALND can undergo reverse mapping of the axilla and immediate reconstruction or bypass of the lymphatics from the involved extremity. Decongestion and compression are the foundation of conservative treatment for established lymphedema, while lymphovenous bypass and lymph node transfer are surgical procedures to address the physiologic dysfunction. Radiotherapy is an essential component of breast locoregional therapy: more than three decades of radiation research has optimized treatment according to patient's risk of local recurrence while substantially reducing the number of treatment visits. High-quality RCTs have shown the efficacy and safety of hypofractionation-more than 2Gy radiation dose per treatment (fraction)-significantly reducing the burden of radiotherapy treatment for many patients with breast cancer. In 2024, guidelines recommend no more than 15-16 fractions for whole-breast and nodal radiotherapy, with some recommending five fractions for whole-breast radiotherapy. In addition, simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) has been shown to be noninferior to sequential boost with regards to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence with similar or reduced long-term side effects, also reducing overall treatment length. Further RCTs are underway investigating other indications for five fractions, including SIB and regional node irradiation, such that, in future, it may be possible for the majority of breast radiotherapy patients to be treated with a 1-week course. This manuscript serves to outline the latest updates on axillary surgical staging, lymphatic surgery, and evidence-based radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

Axillary Surgery for Breast Cancer in 2024

Axillary surgery for patients with breast cancer (BC) in 2024 is becoming increasingly specific, moving away from the previous 'one size fits all' radical approach. The goal is to spare morbidity whilst maintaining oncologic safety. In the upfront surgery setting, a first landmark randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the omission of any surgical axillary staging in patients with unremarkable clinical examination and axillary ultrasound showed non-inferiority to sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB). The study population consisted of 87.8% postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC. Patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer and up to two positive SLNs can safely be spared axillary dissection (ALND) even in the context of mastectomy or extranodal extension. In patients enrolled in the TAXIS trial, adjuvant systemic treatment was shown to be similar with or without ALND despite the loss of staging information. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), targeted lymph node removal with or without SLNB showed a lower false-negative rate to determine nodal pathological complete response (pCR) compared to SLNB alone. However, oncologic outcomes do not appear to differ in patients with nodal pCR determined by either one of the two concepts, according to a recently published global, retrospective, real-world study. Real-world studies generally have a lower level of evidence than RCTs, but they are feasible quickly and with a large sample size. Another global real-world study provides evidence that even patients with residual isolated tumor cells can be safely spared from ALND. In general, few indications for ALND remain. Three randomized controlled trials are ongoing for patients with clinically node-positive BC in the upfront surgery setting and residual disease after NACT. Pending the results of these trials, ALND remains indicated in these patients.

The Impact of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy on Female Patients With T3-4c Breast Cancer and 1-2 Positive Lymph Nodes: A Population-Based Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients diagnosed with cT3-4c breast cancer with no more than 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes.

METHODS

Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, this retrospective study identified patients diagnosed with T3-4c breast cancer between 2010 and 2015. These patients were then categorized into 2 groups: the SLNB group, which underwent examination of 1-5 regional lymph nodes and the axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) group, which underwent examination of ≥10 regional lymph nodes. Propensity score matching analysis was used to assess the efficacy of SLNB in cT3-4c patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis, with 423 and 716 patients in the SLNB and ALND groups, respectively. The 10-year overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) rates in the SLNB group were 66.1% and 76.3%, respectively, compared with 66.0% and 73.8%, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of OS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.80-1.25, P = .997) and BCSS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.83-1.41, P = .551). Even after 1:1 propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.65-1.16, P = .341) and BCSS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.59-1.16, P = .266) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that SLNB does not adversely affect the survival of cT3-4c breast cancer patients with 1-2 sentinel lymph node metastases.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Arm Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

Understanding long-term arm symptoms in breast cancer survivors is critical given excellent survival in the modern era.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included patients treated for stage 0-III breast cancer at our institution from 2002 to 2012. Patient-reported arm symptoms were collected from the EORTC QLQ-BR23 questionnaire. We used linear regression to evaluate adjusted associations between locoregional treatments and the continuous Arm Symptom (AS) score (0-100; higher score reflects more symptoms).

RESULTS

A total of 1126 patients expressed interest in participating and 882 (78.3%) completed the questionnaire. Mean time since surgery was 10.5 years. There was a broad distribution of locoregional treatments, including axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in 37.1% of patients, mastectomy with reconstruction in 36.5% of patients, and post-mastectomy radiation in 38.2% of patients. Overall, 64.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-67.4%) of patients reported no arm symptoms, 17.0% (95% CI 14.7-19.6%) had one mild symptom, 9.4% (95% CI 7.7-11.5%) had two or more mild symptoms, and 9.3% (95% CI 7.6-11.4%) reported one or more severe symptoms. Adjusted AS scores were significantly higher with ALND versus sentinel node biopsy (β 3.5, p = 0.01), and with autologous reconstruction versus all other breast/reconstructive surgery types (β 4.5-5.5, all p < 0.05). There was a significant interaction between axillary and breast/reconstructive surgery, with the greatest effect of ALND in those with mastectomy with implant (β 9.7) or autologous (β 5.7) reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

One in three patients reported arm symptoms at a mean of 10 years from treatment for breast cancer, although rates of severe symptoms were low (<10%). Attention is warranted to the arm morbidity related to both axillary and breast surgery during treatment counseling and survivorship.

Reevaluating Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Total Mastectomy for Low Axillary Burden Breast Cancer: Insights from a Meta-Analysis including the SINODAR-ONE Trial

Complete axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) was previously the standard of care for breast cancer (BC) patients with axillary node disease or macro-metastases found via sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). However, due to significant morbidity, contemporary management now considers a more selective approach, influenced by studies like ACOSOG Z0011. This trial showed that cALND could be omitted without compromising local control or survival in patients with low axillary nodal disease burden undergoing breast-conserving therapy, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. The relevance of this approach for women with low axillary nodal burden undergoing total mastectomy (TM) remained unclear. A PubMed search up to September 2023 identified 147 relevant studies, with 6 meeting the inclusion criteria, involving 4184 patients with BC and low-volume axillary disease (1-3 positive lymph nodes) undergoing TM. Postmastectomy radiotherapy receipt was similar in both groups. After a mean 7.2-year follow-up, both the pooled results and the meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in overall survival. The combined analysis of the published studies, including the subgroup analysis of the SINODAR-One trial, indicates no survival advantage for cALND over SLNB in T1-T2 breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive sentinel lymph nodes (pN1) undergoing mastectomy. This suggests that, following a multidisciplinary evaluation, cALND can be safely omitted. However, the impact of other patient, tumor, and treatment factors on survival requires consideration and therefore further prospective trials are needed for conclusive validation.

Clinical Experience of Axillary Radiotherapy for Node-positive Breast Cancer

AIMS

Patients with breast cancer who have positive lymph nodes are currently recommended axillary node clearance (ANC) or regional nodal irradiation (RNI). ANC is associated with complications such as lymphoedema, brachial plexopathy and shoulder stiffness. The AMAROS Group showed RNI to be non-inferior to ANC with regards to survival and recurrence, and with a better quality of life. We conducted a large real-world population study to show our centre's experience with the use of RNI and to contribute to the current discussion around the management of node-positive breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated patients who received RNI as opposed to ANC between 2006 and 2009 (n = 190). Patients had a range of cancer subtypes/grades. All had positive axillary disease, identified by axillary node sampling or sentinel lymph node biopsy. Systemic therapy was given as per standard protocol. Our data were compared with those of patients who had RNI (n = 681) in AMAROS. Patients were followed up retrospectively and overall survival, breast cancer-specific survival, distant metastasis-free survival, locoregional recurrence and toxicity were recorded, including lymphoedema, brachial plexopathy and shoulder stiffness. Survival analysis was performed on R via the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were also performed. Toxicity data were reported as percentages. Patients meeting POSNOC trial criteria (one to two positive sentinel lymph nodes, macrometastasis, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy) including if oestrogen receptor-positive (stratified POSNOC) were identified for subgroup analysis in the regression model.

RESULTS

Locoregional recurrence was 3.16% versus AMAROS RNI of 1.82%. Overall survival was slightly lower in our population, but cancer-specific survival was higher than AMAROS. Lymphoedema rates were 5.8% versus AMAROS 11% in RNI and 23% in ANC arms, respectively. Brachial plexopathy was 1.6% and arm/shoulder stiffness 7.4%. AMAROS conducted a quality of life survey pertaining to arm/shoulder stiffness, mobility and function, which seemed to affect about 18% in the RNI arm. Univariate analysis revealed POSNOC status, especially if also oestrogen receptor-positive, to be a low risk group with hazard ratio 0.42 (0.20-0.83, P = 0.015). Extracapsular extension of lymph node metastasis was a poor prognostic factor; hazard ratio 4.39 (1.45-14.0, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

We support the conclusion of the AMAROS trial with survival and recurrence following RNI being non-inferior to ANC, and with similarly favourable toxicity data. We support the continuing use of RNI as a treatment option for patients with node-positive breast cancer. Further research is required to answer the key questions regarding personalised management for node-positive breast cancer, with regards to de-escalation and also intensification for the patients exhibiting adverse tumour biology.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme

Background

Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted.

Objectives

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial.

Design

A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously.

Setting

Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible.

Participants

Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom.

Interventions

Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial.

Main outcome measures

Number of host trials funded.

Results

Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials.

Limitations

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3).

Conclusions

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial.

Future work

Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice.

Study registration

All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Trends of Axillary Treatment in Sentinel Node-Positive Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

The ACOSOG-Z0011- and the AMAROS-trial obviated the need for axillary surgery in most sentinel node-positive (SLN+) breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Data for patients who undergo mastectomy is scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate patterns of axillary treatment in SLN+ patients treated by mastectomy in the years after the publication of landmark studies regarding axillary treatment in SLN+ breast cancer patients undergoing BCS.

METHODS

This was a population-based study in cT1-3N0M0 breast cancer patients treated by mastectomy and staged as SLN+ between 2009 and 2018. The performance of an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and/or administration of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) were primary outcomes and were studied over time.

RESULTS

The study included 10,633 patients. The frequency of ALND performance decreased from 78% in 2009 to 10% in 2018, whereas PMRT increased from 4 to 49% (P < 0.001). In ≥N1a patients, ALND performance decreased from 93 to 20%, whereas PMRT increased to 70% (P < 0.001). In N1mi and N0itc patients, ALND was abandoned during the study period, whereas PMRT increased to 38% and 13% respectively (P < 0.001), respectively. Age, tumor subtype, N-stage, and hospital type affected the likelihood that patients underwent ALND.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study in SLN+ breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy, use of ALND decreased drastically over time. By the end of 2018 most ≥N1a patients received PMRT as the only adjuvant axillary treatment, whereas the majority of N1mi and N0itc patients received no additional treatment.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with one to two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE multicentre randomized clinical trial and reopening of enrolment

BACKGROUND

The initial results of the SINODAR-ONE randomized clinical trial reported that patients with T1-2 breast cancer and one to two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes treated with breast-conserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy only, and adjuvant therapy did not present worse 3-year survival, regional recurrence, or distant recurrence rates compared with those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. To extend the recommendation of axillary lymph node dissection omission even in patients treated with mastectomy, a sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE trial is presented here.

METHODS

Patients with T1-2 breast cancer and no more than two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes undergoing mastectomy were analysed. After sentinel lymph node biopsy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either axillary lymph node dissection followed by adjuvant treatment (standard arm) or adjuvant treatment alone (experimental arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 218 patients were treated with mastectomy; 111 were randomly assigned to the axillary lymph node dissection group and 107 to the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only group. At a median follow-up of 33.0 months, there were three deaths (two deaths in the axillary lymph node dissection group and one death in the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only group). There were five recurrences in each treatment arm. No axillary lymph node recurrence was observed. The 5-year overall survival rates were 97.8 and 98.7 per cent in the axillary lymph node dissection treatment arm and the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only treatment arm, respectively (P = 0.597). The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 95.7 and 94.1 per cent in the axillary lymph node dissection treatment arm and the sentinel lymph node biopsy treatment arm, respectively (P = 0.821).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T1-2 breast cancer and one to two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes treated with mastectomy, the overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates of patients treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy only were not inferior to those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. To strengthen the conclusion of the trial, the enrolment of patients treated with mastectomy was reopened as a single-arm experimental study.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05160324 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Axillary Management in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Upfront Surgery: Results from a Nationwide Survey on Behalf of the Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG) and the Breast Cancer Study Group of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO)

BACKGROUND

We assessed the current practice concerning the axillary management of breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing upfront surgery among radiation oncologists (ROs) practising in Italy.

METHODS

An online survey via SurveyMonkey (including 21 questions) was distributed amongst ROs in Italy through personal contacts and the Italian Association for Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) network from August to September 2022. We particularly focused on the emerging omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in the presence of 1-2 sentinel node-positive patients and the consequent change in the role of regional nodal irradiation (RNI).

RESULTS

A total of 101/195 (51% response rate) Italian Radiotherapy Cancer Care Centres answered the survey. With respect to patients with 1-2 sentinel node-positive, the relative proportion of respondents that offer patients ALND a) always, b) only in selected cases, and c) never was 37.6%, 60.4%, and 2.0%, respectively, with no significant geographical (North vs. Centre-South Italy; p = 0.92) or institutional (Academic vs. non-Academic; p = 0.49) differences. Radiation therapy indications varied widely in patients who did not undergo ALND. Among these, about a third of the respondents (17/56, 30.4%) stated that RNI was constantly performed. On the other hand, half of the respondents offered RNI in selected cases, stating that an unfavourable biologic tumour profile and extracapsular nodal extension were considered drivers of their decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present survey show the variability of axillary management offered in clinical practice for BC patients undergoing conserving surgery upfront in Italy. Analysis of these attitudes may trigger the modification of some clinical approaches through multidisciplinary collaboration and create the background for future clinical investigations.

Conventional Imaging, MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI for N and M Staging in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer

Background: This study compares the diagnostic potential of conventional staging (computed tomography (CT), axillary sonography and bone scintigraphy), whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-body ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET/)MRI for N and M staging in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Methods: A total of 208 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were prospectively included in this study and underwent contrast-enhanced thoracoabdominal CT, bone scintigraphy and axillary sonography as well as contrast-enhanced whole-body ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI. The datasets were analyzed with respect to lesion localization and characterization. Histopathology and follow-up imaging served as the reference standard. A McNemar test was used to compare the diagnostic performance of conventional staging, MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI and a Wilcoxon test was used to compare differences in true positive findings for nodal staging. Results: Conventional staging determined the N stage with a sensitivity of 80.9%, a specificity of 99.2%, a PPV (positive predictive value) of 98.6% and a NPV (negative predictive value) of 87.4%. The corresponding results for MRI were 79.6%, 100%, 100% and 87.0%, and were 86.5%, 94.1%, 91.7% and 90.3% for ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI. ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI was significantly more sensitive in determining malignant lymph nodes than conventional imaging and MRI (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0005). Furthermore, ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI accurately estimated the clinical lymph node stage in significantly more cases than conventional imaging and MRI (each p < 0.05). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the M stage in conventional staging were 83.3%, 98.5%, 76.9% and 98.9%, respectively. The corresponding results for both MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI were 100.0%, 98.5%, 80.0% and 100.0%. No significant differences between the imaging modalities were seen for the staging of distant metastases. Conclusions:¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI detects lymph node metastases in significantly more patients and estimates clinical lymph node stage more accurately than conventional imaging and MRI. No significant differences were found between imaging modalities with respect to the detection of distant metastases.

The role of irradiation in the management of the axilla in early breast cancer patients

The need for axillary radiotherapy in patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC) has been a topic of great debate in the last decade. Management of the axilla has evolved significantly over the past four decades with a trend towards de-escalation of surgical interventions and the aim of reducing morbidity and enhancing QOL without compromising long-term oncology outcomes. This review article will address the role of axillary irradiation with a focus on the omission of completion axillary lymph node dissection in selected patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive early breast cancer (EBC) with reference to current guidelines based on evidence to date.

Uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of patients with breast cancer

The aims of this Oncoplastic Breast Consortium and European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists initiative were to identify uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of early breast cancer and to recommend appropriate strategies to address them. By use of Delphi methods, 15 questions were prioritized by more than 250 breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists from 60 countries. Subsequently, a global virtual consensus panel considered available data, ongoing studies and resource utilization. It agreed that research should no longer be prioritized for standardization of axillary imaging, de-escalation of axillary surgery in node-positive cancer and risk evaluation of modern surgery and radiotherapy. Instead, expert consensus recommendations for clinical practice should be based on current evidence and updated once results from ongoing studies become available. Research on de-escalation of radiotherapy and identification of the most relevant endpoints in axillary management should encompass a meta-analysis to identify knowledge gaps, followed by a Delphi process to prioritize and a consensus conference to refine recommendations for specific trial designs. Finally, treatment of residual nodal disease after surgery was recommended to be assessed in a prospective register.

Axillary lymph node dissection: Dead or still alive?

Although sentinel lymph node biopsy is now the primary method of axillary staging and is therapeutic for patients with limited nodal disease, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is still necessary for staging in groups where sentinel lymph node biopsy has not been proven to be accurate and to maintain local control in those with a heavy axillary tumor burden. Additionally, newer approaches to systemic therapy tailored to risk level sometimes necessitate knowledge of the number of involved axillary nodes which can only be obtained with ALND. Ongoing trials will address whether there are additional circumstances where radiotherapy can replace ALND.

The 2022 Assisi Think Tank Meeting: White paper on optimising radiation therapy for breast cancer

The present white paper, referring to the 4th Assisi Think Tank Meeting on breast cancer, reviews state-of-the-art data, on-going studies and research proposals. < 70% agreement in an online questionnaire identified the following clinical challenges: 1: Nodal RT in patients who have a) 1-2 positive sentinel nodes without ALND (axillary lymph node dissection); b) cN1 disease transformed into ypN0 by primary systemic therapy and c) 1-3 positive nodes after mastectomy and ALND. 2. The optimal combination of RT and immunotherapy (IT), patient selection, IT-RT timing, and RT optimal dose, fractionation and target volume. Most experts agreed that RT- IT combination does not enhance toxicity. 3: Re-irradiation for local relapse converged on the use of partial breast irradiation after second breast conserving surgery. Hyperthermia aroused support but is not widely available. Further studies are required to finetune best practice, especially given the increasing use of re-irradiation.

Risk factors of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer with 1-2 sentinel lymph node macrometastases underwent total mastectomy: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

The randomized trials which include ACOSOG Z0011 and IBCSG 23-01 had found that the survival rates were not different in patients with cT1/2N0 and 1-2 sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive, macro/micrometastases who underwent breast-conserving therapy, and micrometastases who underwent total mastectomy (TM), when axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was omitted. However, for patients with cT1/2N0 and 1-2 SLN macrometastases who underwent TM; there was still insufficient evidence from clinical studies to support whether ALND can be exempted. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of non-sentinel lymph node (nSLN) metastasis in breast cancer patients with 1-2 SLN macrometastases undergoing TM.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of 1491 breast cancer patients who underwent TM and SLNB from January 2017 to February 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze the risk factors for nSLN metastasis.

RESULTS

A total of 273 patients with 1-2 SLN macrometastases who underwent TM were enrolled. Postoperative pathological data showed that 35.2% patients had nSLN metastasis. The results of multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size (TS) (P = 0.002; OR: 1.051; 95% CI: 1.019-1.084) and ratio of SLN macrometastases (P = 0.0001; OR: 12.597: 95% CI: 4.302-36.890) were the independent risk factors for nSLN metastasis in breast cancer patients with 1-2 SLN macrometastases that underwent TM. The ROC curve analysis suggested that when TS ≤22 mm and ratio of SLN macrometastases ≤0.33, the incidence of nSLN metastasis could be reduced to 17.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The breast cancer patients with cT1/2N0 stage, undergoing TM and 1-2 SLN macrometastases, when the TS ≤22 mm and macrometastatic SLN does not exceed 1/3 of the total number of detected SLN, the incidence of nSLN metastasis is significantly reduced, but whether ALND can be exempted needs further exploration.

Contemporary approaches to the axilla in breast cancer

Over the past decade, axillary management in breast cancer has fundamentally shifted. The former notion that any degree of axillary nodal involvement warrants axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has been challenged. Following publication of the ACOSOG Z0011 trial, national trends demonstrated significant reductions in ALND performance. Axillary radiotherapy in lieu of ALND is a consideration for select patients with a positive sentinel lymph node, while ongoing studies are investigating the role of adjuvant regional radiotherapy in women with positive nodes prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Efforts toward de-escalation of axillary surgery continue to evolve, as do the indications for sentinel node biopsy omission in select subsets of patients. This review highlights the recent advances and neoteric approaches to local therapy of the axilla in breast cancer.

Surgical Management of the Axilla for Breast Cancer

This review discusses the contemporary surgical management of the axilla in patients with breast cancer. Surgical paradigms are highlighted by clinical nodal status at presentation and treatment approach, including upfront surgery and neoadjuvant systemic therapy settings. This review focuses on the increasing opportunities for de-escalating the extent of axillary surgery in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy, while also reviewing the remaining indications for axillary clearance with axillary lymph node dissection.

Axillary lymph node dissection can be omitted in patients with limited clinically node-positive breast cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis

BACKGROUND

De-escalation of axillary surgery in breast cancer has progressively taken place when appropriate. Data supporting surgical de-escalation in patients with clinically node-positive (cN+) disease remains scarce. Here, survival among patients with cN+ T1-2 tumours undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) was investigated and compared with that among patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with or without RNI.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify three groups of patients with cN+ tumours according to axillary management among those treated between 2010 and 2016: patients who underwent SLNB and RNI (cN+ SLNB/RNI group); those who had ALND and RNI (cN+ ALND/RNI group); and those who had ALND alone (cN+ ALND/no RNI group). Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and those who had stage IV breast cancer or pN2-3 disease were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 12 560 patients met the inclusion criteria: 3030 in the cN+ SLNB/RNI, 5446 in the cN+ ALND/RNI, and 4084 in the cN+ ALND/no RNI group. The sizes of cN + SLNB/RNI and cN+ ALND/RNI groups increased over the study interval, whereas the cN+ ALND/no RNI group decreased in size (P < 0.001). There was a median of one positive node in the cN+ SLNB/RNI group and two nodes in the cN+ ALND/RNI and cN+ ALND/no RNI groups. The median number of nodes examined was three, 14, and 14, respectively (P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 57.9 (range 0.8-114) months. The overall survival rate was 97, 97, and 92 per cent respectively at two years, and 88, 86, and 78 per cent at five years (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with limited cN+ T1-2 breast cancer undergoing upfront SLNB and RNI have favourable survival outcomes that are not inferior to those of patients undergoing ALND with or without RNI. Prospective studies are warranted to assess locoregional control and long-term outcomes.

The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews.

RESULTS

Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.

Effect of non-sentinel metastasis on adjuvant treatment decisions and survival in Z0011 eligible non-screened detected breast cancer population

Background

The Z0011 trial results have shown that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can be avoided in cT1-2 patients undergoing breast conservation surgery with 1–2 metastatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). We compared the clinicopathological characteristics of the Z0011 eligible non-screen detected breast cancer patients’ cohort with the Z0011 trial study population. Additionally, we have explored the effect of non-sentinel metastasis on adjuvant treatment decisions and survival.

Methods

The details of early breast cancer (EBC) patients fulfilling Z0011 eligibility criteria were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database (2013–2017) and electronic medical records. We used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 25 and Stata V15 for the data analysis.

Results

128/194 (66%) sentinel lymph node biopsy positive patients had fulfilled the Z0011 inclusion criteria. Compared to the Z0011 study, our cohort patients were younger, with more aggressive disease (higher T2, Grade 3), had a higher rate of macrometastasis (82.8% versus 58.8%) and non-SLN metastasis (48% versus 27%). The information gained by ALND had changed decisions for chemotherapy in 3% and no change of radiotherapy in Z0011 eligible patients. Further nodal positivity in completion ALND was not significantly associated with overall survival (p = 0.86) and disease-free survival (p = 0.5).

Conclusion

Z0011 eligible Indian EBC patients are significantly different from the Z0011 study population, with younger age of presentation, higher grade, a higher rate of both SLN macro metastasis and non-SLN positivity. The impact of non-sentinel metastasis on adjuvant treatment decisions and survival is minimal.